Request ID: FOI-2040-2122 Date published: 06 January 2022
You asked
Dear Sir
I have seen your notice that you will start work on C9 on Monday, attached.
In it you claim it will enable “safer” cycling.
Under the Freedom of information Act, please disclose the data used to support the claim that is “safer”.
As part of this request please provide copies of the safety assessments done prior to implementation. If none has been done, please tell me that is the case.
Please will you also provide details of the assessments you have done on this scheme in terms of impacts on congestion and traffic delays.
Please quantify the expected delays to busses, as mentioned in your message.
Please also quantify the expected delays to general traffic.
In implementing this scheme, please provide me with cycling usage data used to justify the investment in the scheme. In answering this question this, please provide usage data on usage of the temporary cycle lane that was set up around the gyratory during the pandemic and subsequently removed. Please explain why that temporary cycle lane was removed and please provide a copy of the assessment document that justified the decision to remove it.
How much will these works cost? In answering this question, please either omit or redact reference to any specific contractors so that you CANNOT use commercial confidentiality as an excuse for not telling me how taxpayers’ money is spent.
As this email was forwarded to me and I will be affected by the delays, I am concerned that the scope of your consultation will be inappropriate, so please pass on to me a copy of any plans or proposal for the consultation. (If there are no plans yet, please provide a copy of the brief.) I am particularly interested to see the question design and the audience groups to which it will be sent.
You say the scheme is temporary and its impact will be assessed. How long is the temporary period? How soon will you launch the consultation on its impact? What hard cycle usage data and general traffic flow data will be collected to assess its performance?
As this scheme is temporary, it could have been an experiment using plastic bollards and temporary signals – and there is precedent for this with the temporary cycle lane that was previously put round the gyratory. Therefore, why will this scheme not use such temporary materials? How much money would have been saved it such temporary materials were used?
Finally, as the experimental temporary lane put round the gyratory was consistently empty and as TfL knows that it caused congestion, why was the result of that experiment ignored? Please provide a copy of the internal report produced on the effectiveness/impact of that temporary cycle lane? And please provide a copy of the internal document justifying this “temporary” project, which was signed off prior to its go ahead.
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-2040-2122 and EIR-2052-2122
Thank you for your requests of 4th December and 10th December 2021 - detailed below - about the Cycleway 9 scheme.
Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Your requests are being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it would be “manifestly unreasonable” to address all of the questions asked. As you can see below where I have annotated your requests with numbers, taken together they pose 27 distinct questions. While some of these are relatively straightforward others are more complicated, including questions which are open-ended in terms of timeframes (for example, “please disclose all data TfL has on accidents on C9 and the equivalent stretch of roadway both before and after its construction”). It would take a great deal of time and effort for us to source answers to each and every question. The Information Commissioner’s Office states that the manifestly unreasonable exception may be applied “when the cost of compliance with the request would be too great” and that “The purpose of the exception is to protect public authorities from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling information requests.” In this case we consider the resource required to answer every question would represent a ‘disproportionate burden’ and a disproportionate ‘level of disruption’.
The cumulative effect of answering this many questions on a single topic is that it imposes a burden and disruption to colleagues across the organisation whose principal function is the planning and running of transport services or the support services required to make that happen. Responding to them requires the re-allocation and diversion of our resources and places a burden on a small number of personnel. All of this leads us to believe that answering your latest requests is not a justified and proportionate use of our time.
Please be assured that our application of the exception does not reflect a conclusion that it has been your deliberate intention to place an undue burden on TfL, and we will consider any future request for information on its merits and in accordance with the requirements of the law and the expectations of the ICO. However, in making any future request I would ask that you consider carefully what information is of most importance to you, and to take into account the guidance and advice provided by the ICO on how best to access information from public bodies, such as the “dos and don’ts” published on its website here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/
You will note that the table halfway down that page includes the following advice to FOI applicants:
Do….“Give the authority ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before submitting new ones”, and; Don’t… “Disrupt a public authority by the sheer volume of information requested”
We would therefore encourage you to prioritise any future requests around the information that is of most importance to you to ensure that you are able to make the best use of our resources.
Further, I note that a series of Mayoral Questions have been asked which mirror precisely some of the questions in your request of 4th December, shown here:
Cycleway 9 (1)- Question No: 2021/4985- Tony Devenish - Please disclose the data used to support your claim that C9 will be “safer” than the status quo.
Cycleway 9 (2)- Question No: 2021/4986- Tony Devenish - What safety assessments have been done prior to implementation of C9?
Cycleway 9 (3)- Question No: 2021/4987- Tony Devenish - What assessments has TfL done on C9 in terms of its impacts on congestion and traffic delays?
Cycleway 9 (4)- Question No: 2021/4988- Tony Devenish - Please quantify the expected delays to buses due to Cycleway 9.
Cycleway 9 (5)- Question No: 2021/4989- Tony Devenish - Please also quantify the expected delays to general traffic caused by C9.
Cycleway 9 (6)- Question No: 2021/4990- Tony Devenish - In implementing the C9 scheme, please provide me with the cycling usage data used to justify the investment in the scheme, including data on the usage of the temporary cycle lane that was set up around the Hammersmith Gyratory during the pandemic and subsequently removed.
Cycleway 9 (7)- Question No: 2021/4991- Tony Devenish - Please explain why the temporary cycle lane around the Hammersmith Gyratory was removed and please provide a copy of the assessment document that justified the decision to remove it.
Cycleway 9 (8)- Question No: 2021/4992- Tony Devenish - As the experimental temporary lane put round the Hammersmith Gyratory was consistently empty and as TfL is well aware that it caused congestion, why was the result of that experiment seemingly ignored? In answering, please provide a copy of the internal report produced on the effectiveness and impact of that temporary cycle lane. In addition, please provide a copy of the internal document justifying this “temporary” project, which was signed off prior to its approval.
You may wish to review the responses to these questions before considering and submitting any revised request.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
